Prioritization and willingness to pay for bariatric surgery: the patient perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to publicly funded bariatric surgery is limited, potential candidates face lengthy waits, and no universally accepted prioritization criteria exist. We examined patients' perspectives regarding prioritization for surgery. METHODS: We surveyed consecutively recruited patients awaiting bariatric surgery about 9 hypothetical scenarios describing patients waiting for surgery. Respondents were asked to rank the priority of these hypothetical patients on the wait list relative to their own. Scenarios examined variations in age, clinical severity, functional impairment, social dependence and socioeconomic status. Willingness to pay for faster access was assessed using a 5-point ordinal scale and analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The 99 respondents had mean age of 44.7 ± 9.9 years, 76% were women, and the mean body mass index was 47.3 ± SD 7.6. The mean wait for surgery was 34.4 ± 9.4 months. Respondents assigned similar priority to hypothetical patients with characteristics identical to theirs (p = 0.22) and higher priority (greater urgency) to those exhibiting greater clinical severity (p < 0.001) and functional impairment (p = 0.003). Lower priority was assigned to patients at the extremes of age (p = 0.006), on social assistance (p < 0.001) and of high socioeconomic status (p < 0.001). Most (85%) respondents disagreed with payment to expedite access, although participants earning more than $80 000/year were less likely to disagree. CONCLUSION: Most patients waiting for bariatric surgery consider greater clinical severity and functional impairments related to obesity to be important prioritization indicators and disagreed with paying for faster access. These findings may help inform future efforts to develop acceptable prioritization strategies for publicly funded bariatric surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".